Eminent Technology ET-2 Tonearm Owners

Richardkrebs: I think that maybe a perfect example of what you are saying and what I've experienced, can be found in the Walker tt and associated stand. The stand, from my memory, included lead as a factor. This was most likely used as a necessity to deal with the system as a whole and it's (final, sonic) needs. (Maybe, with the inferiority of any stand, at the time, in order to effectively deal with such a well thought out, heavy design), they may have felt that deadening was superior to any other (systems) available then.

I just realized, here we are on the ET thread... and now, in my responses, I've introduced brass, lead , Walker...anyone see the connection?

From my memory, Bruce Thigpen had a working relationship with Bob Dilger on the Mapenoll, the ET arm was part of this project and then the basis for the Walker arm, then Pierre Spray (Mapleshade) had an association with Bob and apparently the folks at Walker (look at their similar racks and wire designs) It really comes full circle.. (in no particular order)

Slaw
In my experience using solid lead never over damps the structure provided it is adhered to the structure with a glue that is of equal or higher hardness than the structure. Do not use glues like Ados!
Using lead in this way actually increases the vividness or presence of the sound.
Try a small sheet of your chosen plinth material.
Listen to it thru a stethoscope by tapping it with something hard.
Now epoxy glue a sheet of lead to the parent material. Try the tap test again.
You will likely hear a sharper but much shorter "Tic". Think of speaker waterfall plots here, we want rapid dissipation of the energy.
IMO the same applies to TTs as well.
Next load another sheet parent material with a bag of lead shot. Tap test again. It will likely not be as sharp but will be a longer slurred sound. I think that the lead shot actually rattles and this is what you are hearing.
Some years ago I made a TT stand.
The vertical colums were 2" ID aluminim tubes. I tried filling these with sand, lead shot and a combination of both. Finally used solid lead rods inside the tubes. This was easily superior to the other iterations.
Cheers and good luck with the project!

Richardkrebs: Regarding the "rapid dissipation of energy", in the above test that you described, I have to wonder if in fact it was that or possibly the lead blocking/trapping/redirecting any resonance? Having just said that, I'll ask myself... Where did it go? To be filtered back through the "parent" material a second time? This is just a thought, not a conclusion. I have to wonder, if the differing materials one uses will have a different reaction to lead as well? My own answer is, most likely. As you can tell, this is an ongoing process in my own mind. But, in the end, it's how things sound that ultimately matters.

FWIW: I made my own version of the Bright Star "sand boxes" early on and in addition, just a few years ago, tried a small version under a prototype motor enclosure and in all cases, upon listening, I was not satisfied. I feel that sand traps/stores energy. If not, where does it go? Into the box itself, that has no real effective way of dealing with said energy? Just think of how some manufacturers of tts aligned themselves with Bright Star or even Ginko years ago but now, there are other, more effective methods, and you don't see those tt manufacturers advertising with said aftermarket products anymore. This fact is telling. (The introduction of Stillpoints will go down in history as a milestone in the history of effectively dealing with resonances in audio reproduction. Still, they are to be used with a certain amount of discretion. Just my two cents). In my tests I described in a previous post (with lead/brass & not with a component that has a motor spinning) there is the tendency for brass as a material to ring. I continue to feel that this "ring" of that particular materials' structure is what allows it to "pass' resonances in a way that ultimately provides superior sonics in the end. Some materials' "ringing" nature can be a good thing in terms of end-user sonic return. Think back to the RoomTunes "tuneable" speaker enclosure or Harbeth's philosophy of a certain amount of resonance makes great sound. I believe it all comes down to the individual materials used and how they are applied in a certain scenario.

Others may find this discussion boring, I just am trying to give you my impressions and thought process. I can see that you've correlated your testing methods and your listening results with the materials you used and are satisfied. Thanks for the response!

... (more food for thought).. would lead shot encapsulated in epoxy sound different from stainless steel shot encapsulated in the same epoxy in a similar project? The point being, as you eluded to, that the epoxy is keeping the encapsulated material from exuding it's natural reaction to resonances. The only possible difference would be the mass each individual component has. This goes to my point of a particular materials' resonant properties affect on overall sound. (We may be trying to say the same thing but getting to that similar point by different methods.)

I have used epoxied lead shot inside a DIY subwoofer because at that time I was convinced that lead is good for the sound and that it's just the right material, kind of soft yet hard enough to retain it's shape. Since then I have learned that lead, unfortunately, is one of the worst materials ever foisted on poor unsuspecting naive audiophiles and should be avoided even in small amounts, especially noticeable in how it destroys the bass frequencies. Note: I wound up having to take a hatchet and small sledge hammer to the DIY subwoofer just to be able to get it out of the house. Was that wrong?